There is tremendous confusion surrounding the status of Medjugorje.
I am writing this to provide some clarification.
This clarification has received acceptance from my Diocesan office.
There is much talk of Medjugorje being banned!
However, we must stop speaking this way.
There is NO BAN!
Much of the confusion has stemmed from a directive written by the Papal Nuncio. However, this confusion never needed to occur.
faithful “are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or
public celebrations during which the credibility of such ‘apparitions’
would be taken for granted.”
bishop (and subsequently forwarded to all U.S. bishops).
their event in the exact same way — advertising that an apparition would occur — and thus the event was prohibited from taking place.
presume the credibility of the apparitions nor advertise that an apparition will take place.
charged word that the Papal Nuncio never wrote in his directive.
there is a ban is inciting misinformation
feeding into the enemy’s plan,
talking of Medjugorje is banned.
apparition will take place, but if we don’t presume or advertise these things
as if they have already been deemed authentic, (the Church has made no final judgment) we can still meet!
on Public Revelation and we need always be obedient to the Church’s
apparitions as having full authenticity of the Church—
vocations, as well as the reported messages –as well as, our personal stories and experiences and our
own beliefs regarding Medjugorje, IF we clarify that these are our own
not taking for granted the official approval of the Church, and thus, meetings regarding Medjugorje cannot be banned!
this in mind,
of reported ongoing apparitions,
Church has found nothing to condemn,
having meetings in which
have been documented –nor does it condemn those striving to live prayerful lives of
conversion, Eucharist, Confession, Scripture and fasting.
calls into question the Papal Nuncio’s directive… I believe it is a mistake to
speak of the papal nuncio’s directive as a misquotation. (Who are we to
say such things?)
because I wanted to understand why they would advertise Ivan as a visionary as
well as an apparition taking place –which is exactly what the Papal Annuncio’s
directive said we cannot do. In my opinion, the action is a reflection of the
organizer’s disregard for the directive that made the CDF step in to assure the
directive was being adhered to. The CDF’s statement when it stepped in to halt this gathering specified Ivan by name because it was regarded Ivan in particular —
because it was Ivan who was supposed to speak and have an apparition each time.
I tried to speak to the organizers in love– suggesting they advertise it
differently. I believe if they would
have had advertised Ivan as a “reported” visionary and not advertised
that an apparition would take place, they would not have been prohibiting from
having him speak. They told me when I
called they believed since they were holding the event in a public place the
directive wouldn’t be disobeyed.
interested, here is the Papal Nuncio’s directive: